Jump to content

Is Tony Dunkley on a winner?


Midnight

Featured Posts

I have to confess to the occasional covert visit the Thunderboat just to see how TD is getting on with his case against CaRT. Whilst the comments over there are highly amusing and I have no idea to the rights and wrongs of the case, the latest posts by TD suggest he may indeed be getting somewhere. Seems like, according to TD, that Nottingham police have agreed that CaRT have acted illegally in seizing his boat. I now find myself in something of a quandary between supporting the under-dog and thinking maybe TD was probably pushing it a little bit too far in his squabbles with officialdom and reason. I think I'll choose the under-dog if only because I admire his fighting spirit and grasp of legal issues.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I have to confess to the occasional covert visit the Thunderboat just to see how TD is getting on with his case against CaRT. Whilst the comments over there are highly amusing and I have no idea to the rights and wrongs of the case, the latest posts by TD suggest he may indeed be getting somewhere. Seems like, according to TD, that Nottingham police have agreed that CaRT have acted illegally in seizing his boat. I now find myself in something of a quandary between supporting the under-dog and thinking maybe TD was probably pushing it a little bit too far in his squabbles with officialdom and reason. I think I'll choose the under-dog if only because I admire his fighting spirit and grasp of legal issues.

Tony is a good egg and I wish him well. However visiting the other playground is verboten on my pooter ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the legality issues, it looks complex and Dunkley has taken his position without fear. I would not be surprised if the CRT have acted contrary to good practice, but testing it in the courts is a different matter.

Imho TD should not allow his emotional opinion to be voiced on a public forum unless by doing so is going to bring public opinion onside. It's obviously very wearing for TD, but the CRT and their advisers have a mega advantage they are 9 to 5, and are salaried, no financial losses for them. 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what he posted and without wading through the act he linked to this could now open up a whole can of worms for CaRT and those they contract/employ. It may have implications for the handing of the light boat confiscation in Liverpool and Liverpool Police's apparent failure to investigate.

 

A very brave and principled chap to take CaRT on despite the hostility of many people.

Edited by Tony Brooks
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tony Brooks said:

From what he posted and without wading through the act he linked to this could now open up a whole can of worms for CaRT and those they contract/employ. It may have implications for the handing of the light boat confiscation in Liverpool and Liverpool Police's apparent failure to investigate.

That sums it up neatly, but can one man fight the establishment, it's been tried many times before, and failed, not sure how often the underdog wins in these situations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

That sums it up neatly, but can one man fight the establishment, it's been tried many times before, and failed, not sure how often the underdog wins in these situations. 

 

That is what concerns me about the whole drawn out saga. In the end I fear if he wins it will be a victory in which he comes out by far the worst. However, if he does win it might make CaRT stick to the actual law rather than what they would like it to be. If so all boaters should be grateful.

 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LadyG said:

That sums it up neatly, but can one man fight the establishment, it's been tried many times before, and failed, not sure how often the underdog wins in these situations. 

He wont have to, If the police investigation finds that CRT acted illegally they will be taking CRT/others to court, which i suspect is Tonys intention. At the end there is a law and its up to all parties to obey it, its up to courts to judge it and police to enforce it, CRT arnt judge jury and executioner in one

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

He wont have to, If the police investigation finds that CRT acted illegally they will be taking CRT/others to court, which i suspect is Tonys intention. At the end there is a law and its up to all parties to obey it, its up to courts to judge it and police to enforce it, CRT arnt judge jury and executioner in one

As I read it, Tony has no expectation that the police will take up the case, but he thinks that the information he has got from them gives him grounds for a private prosecution. Presumably he hopes to find a lawyer to take it up on a "no win no fee" basis, but even this usually costs the individual, if they lose, a few grand.

His case seems to partly rest on an esoteric definition of "bailiff" which, at the risk of bring deluges of abuse down on my head , I have always suspected is not correct. If there's a core issue, it might be best to concentrate on that, rather than hurling accusations about like sparks from a catherine wheel.

Whether a public case comes to court depends on the DPP, not the police. They are just supposed to find out the facts - they don't do law. I'm fairly sure they haven't a clue about the rights and wrongs in Tony's case  and that they don't care much, either.

 

.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For most of us the "cost" would be a stress, loss of amenity time and a possible nervous breakdown.

 

That's where Tony seems to have the advantage. He can stick it up anyone without any side affects!

 

:)

 

 

Edited by mark99
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect CaRT use the principle that "if folk think we have legal powers then let them think so". Law only works if people recognise it as such and toe the line, problem is if that law doesn't actually exist then care has to be taken not to let the cat out of the bag. 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As I read it, Tony has no expectation that the police will take up the case, but he thinks that the information he has got from them gives him grounds for a private prosecution. Presumably he hopes to find a lawyer to take it up on a "no win no fee" basis, but even this usually costs the individual, if they lose, a few grand.

His case seems to partly rest on an esoteric definition of "bailiff" which, at the risk of bring deluges of abuse down on my head , I have always suspected is not correct. If there's a core issue, it might be best to concentrate on that, rather than hurling accusations about like sparks from a catherine wheel.

Whether a public case comes to court depends on the DPP, not the police. They are just supposed to find out the facts - they don't do law. I'm fairly sure they haven't a clue about the rights and wrongs in Tony's case  and that they don't care much, either.

 

.

You are right Arthur, we did some googling and couldn't find the bailiff company, as you know they have to be licensed to do what they do. With luck CPS will do something and just maybe CRT will think twice before breaking the law next time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, a private prosecution does not create a precedent for establishing 'the law'. If officialdom decides CRT have a case to answer, then I would expect them to try to settle out of court, as they have done in the past. I think Tony maybe the one who pushes it to the limit in his case.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, peterboat said:

You are right Arthur, we did some googling and couldn't find the bailiff company, as you know they have to be licensed to do what they do. With luck CPS will do something and just maybe CRT will think twice before breaking the law next time. 

Assuming this is the right lot, took me two minutes to find it. I presume they come under one of the civil umbrella companies of authorised bailiffs.

gk.jpg

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Midnight said:

I have to confess to the occasional covert visit the Thunderboat just to see how TD is getting on with his case against CaRT. Whilst the comments over there are highly amusing and I have no idea to the rights and wrongs of the case, the latest posts by TD suggest he may indeed be getting somewhere. Seems like, according to TD, that Nottingham police have agreed that CaRT have acted illegally in seizing his boat. I now find myself in something of a quandary between supporting the under-dog and thinking maybe TD was probably pushing it a little bit too far in his squabbles with officialdom and reason. I think I'll choose the under-dog if only because I admire his fighting spirit and grasp of legal issues.

Despite the apparent intentions of the latest Bill, we still do not live in a Police State and it is not in the gift of the Police to determine whether or not something is illegal. We - the people - gift that to the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Assuming this is the right lot, took me two minutes to find it. I presume they come under one of the civil umbrella companies of authorised bailiffs.

gk.jpg

Now check if they have bailiff licenses and see what you find, there is a register for them 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Despite the apparent intentions of the latest Bill, we still do not live in a Police State and it is not in the gift of the Police to determine whether or not something is illegal. We - the people - gift that to the courts.

You are correct and that is how it should be but for most practical purposes and for most people the law is usually something that is used against us by some wealthier or more powerful entity and most of us only ever get to actively use the law to defend ourselves, a gruelling experience.  If you have a lot of money you can buy a lot of law. If you are poor you can't buy much law and legal aid barely exists.  Apparently when the NHS was established much the same thing was planned for access to the law. Didn't happen. Not trying to start a never ending thread on criminality and so on, just trying to make a few points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, peterboat said:

Now check if they have bailiff licenses and see what you find, there is a register for them 

Sorry, I'm not that interested unless they come knocking on my door. Only time I've had bailiffs round was several marriages ago and all got settled amicably. As this lot seem to have been going for some years, and this seems a core bit of their business, I'd be really surprised if they weren't acting with all the legal requirements. There seems to be no online way to find out, especially if they are acting under one of the civil umbrella organisations. Best way, if anyone's really interested and doesn't just enjoy pointless speculation, would be to phone them up and ask them! But this is why I have my doubts about all this "illegal bailiff" stuff. Which is not to say Tony may be right, but implying the company doesn't exist, or saying it's hard to find, isn't helpful - unless there's another company with the same name doing the same stuff under the radar...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, peterboat said:

He wont have to, If the police investigation finds that CRT acted illegally they will be taking CRT/others to court, which i suspect is Tonys intention. At the end there is a law and its up to all parties to obey it, its up to courts to judge it and police to enforce it, CRT arnt judge jury and executioner in one

 

The only thing the Police MIGHT report to the DPP would be the misrepresentation regarding "Court appointed bailiffs" and the "Court Order".

They are not going to be interested in the operation of the British Waterways Acts 1971 and 1983, which is TD's root complaint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bee said:

You are correct and that is how it should be but for most practical purposes and for most people the law is usually something that is used against us by some wealthier or more powerful entity and most of us only ever get to actively use the law to defend ourselves, a gruelling experience.  If you have a lot of money you can buy a lot of law. If you are poor you can't buy much law and legal aid barely exists.  Apparently when the NHS was established much the same thing was planned for access to the law. Didn't happen. Not trying to start a never ending thread on criminality and so on, just trying to make a few points. 

One of the things that saddens me is that over the past few decades, the debate about what makes a civilised society has progressively diminished in favour individualism. The period of which you wrote (ie 1935 - 1965) saw a remarkable growth in the recognition that, at some stage, we all need 'society' and that our own lives will be impoverished if others are not on the lookout for us as well as themselves. we even have politicians now glorifying greed.

 

 

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

One of the things that saddens me is that over the past few decades, the debate about what makes a civilised society has progressively diminished in favour individualism. The period of which you wrote (ie 1935 - 1965) saw a remarkable growth in the recognition that, at some stage, we all need 'society' and that our own lives will be impoverished if others are not on the lookout for us as well as themselves. we even have politicians now glorifying greed.

 

 

I don't think it's changed that much. Most of us try, as we've always done, to live satisfying lives and care for our families and friends. It's just the media has changed so we know more, such as about the greed of politicians where once they just got on being corrupt without anyone being very aware of it.

Part of the time you mention we were at war - plenty of black marketing and corruption going on then, and lots of people got rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/03/2021 at 17:39, nb Innisfree said:

I suspect CaRT use the principle that "if folk think we have legal powers then let them think so". Law only works if people recognise it as such and toe the line, problem is if that law doesn't actually exist then care has to be taken not to let the cat out of the bag. 

 

It is sometimes even more fuzzy than that. Some 20 or so years ago when BW took what is now referred to as 'the end of gardens mooring case' to law it was only at a low level court, and the Judge made his decision explicitly on the basis that BW needed the money rather than any niceties of the law. We attended with renowned Birmingham Solicitor Nick Grazebrook and he was certain that the decision would be rejected on appeal, but who was going to appeal? IWA already had a more important case under way, and had no funds to spare. For any individual riperian house owner to go to court it woud entail paying for extremely expensive high calibre representation, as although the decision did not constitute case law per se, it was nevertheless on record. On the basis of that decision BW and then CRT were able to cobble together some form of contract for end of garden moorings that all subsequent applicants were obliged to sign, in a sense abrocating any Rights of mooring they might have.

 

Committed people like Tony and the late Nigel Moore deserve the admiration of all canal users for their tenacity in pushing for legal definition of CRT's limits.

 

Tam

Edited by Tam & Di
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood, maybe erroneously, that the law allowing BW to charge for EOG moorings had been passed some years previously, but never used.

Certainly, it wasn't just one or two people tried to avoid it, all sorts of ideas were tried and failed.  I believe several were tried in courts, and all failed. I'm also fairly sure that if CRT weren't sure of their legal position, they wouldn't be charging for temporary towpath moorings as well as long term ones. It is no use fighting battles you are sure to lose.

Tony and Nigel had rather different approaches to their disagreements with CRT, which is why Nigel won most of his, and Tony doesn't. Nigel was rationality personified, Tony appears to think that by hurling accusations left right and centre and getting up everyone's nose, he'll end up with the decision. Sadly, the judiciary (and the police) probably just regard him as a damn nuisance, and treat his case acccordingly.

Anyway, it's not really fair to discuss this here where he can't reply, and maybe it should be left TB, where he certainly does.  So I shan't, any more.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I understood, maybe erroneously, that the law allowing BW to charge for EOG moorings had been passed some years previously, but never used.

Certainly, it wasn't just one or two people tried to avoid it, all sorts of ideas were tried and failed.  I believe several were tried in courts, and all failed. I'm also fairly sure that if CRT weren't sure of their legal position, they wouldn't be charging for temporary towpath moorings as well as long term ones. It is no use fighting battles you are sure to lose.

 

I'd go along with your last sentence to a large degree; we had a legal battle with the London Dock Labour Board about carrying cargo on the Thames and although we won our Court case the dockers still refused to load our boat - at that point we decided we could not become 'martyrs to the cause' and looked for work elsewhere. But that did not in anyway mean LDLB action was legal - just that we had to earn a living. Similarly if Tony is convinced of the legality of his postition, good on him. We knew him in the 60s and he was a pretty cantankerous fellow back then, but that does not mean his position should not be tested in law.

 

I'm afraid it is rather naive to assume CRT to be sure of their legal position. It is not that black and white - there is no law allowing them to charge for EOG moorings, though in some circumstances they may be correct in doing so. The decision in a couple of cases went in their favour, allowing them to side-step the issue by convincing applicants to sign an agreement. Most people now accept that position, and who wants to want to involve themselves in the time and vast expense of contesting the issue which is not anyway guaranteed of success? They console themselves with the same sentiments as the Jdge in the EOG case - CRT need the money.   ?

 

Tam

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.